Effect of Faculty on Damage

[Pluton]

Test was on Triton:
At 100% faculty, you do 100% damage.
At ~0-1% faculty, you do ~40-60% damage.

Numbers could be wrong.

Update: Look at post below for more info.

[Orochi]

when faculty goes down by X%, damage will drop by (X/2)%, lowest being 50% damage dealt.

[SteveForge]

(10-17-2011, 03:55 PM)Orochi Wrote: when faculty goes down by X%, damage will drop by (X/2)%, lowest being 50% damage dealt.

Sounds right. Mages seem to have the same impact, though my curves keep coming up a bit higher than 50% for 0 troops. Probably just random chance... but each dot on this chart is a average of 10 to 15 passes with the same faculty (averaged them to 1 point to make linear regression simple).

---

(10-15-2011, 08:31 PM)Pluton Wrote: Test was on Triton:
At 100% faculty, you do 100% damage.
At ~0-1% faculty, you do ~40-60% damage.

Numbers could be wrong.

Titron's strength at low faculty seems high here. Those posted numbers about C&B and SS changing Coefficient;s of damage vs faculty are suspect now.

The previously posted forum info was:
C&B: 2.5 (100%), 2.0 (75%), 1.6 (50%), 1.2 (20%)

I was under the assumption these changing DAMAGE COEFFICIENTS were independent of the faculty effects on hit strength.
i.e. adjusting for the 50%=0 faculty effect... and normalizing 100% to 1.0 (instead of 2.5) I get:
100% faculty @ 2.5cd = 2.5/2.5*(1.00/2+.5) = 1.00
75% faculty @ 2.0cd = 2.0/2.5*(.75/2+.50) = 0.70
50% faculty @ 1.6cd = 1.6/2.5*(.50/2+.50) = 0.48
20% faculty @ 1.2cd = 1.2/2.5*(.20/2+.50) = 0.28

So 20% faculty C&B attack should have the decreasing damage coefficient AND the decreasing faculty effects and only be 28% as strong as a full strength hit. Clearly that's not the case if Pluton is getting near 0 numbers north of 40%.

My guess? the damage coefficient for Crash and burn is actually fixed at 2.5. The strength drop is due solely to faculty losses... like any other BM?
with a fixed 2.5 CD...
100% @ 2.5 = 1.00 (or 2.5)
75% @ 2.5 = 0.875 (or 2.2)
50% @ 2.5 = 0.75 (or 1.9)
20% @ 2.5 = 0.60 (or 1.5)
0% @ 2.5 = 0.50 (or 1.25)

Is it possible C&B is actually a fixed cD? and that sliding scale we've seen publish is just adjusted for faculty losses? That'd be my guess. C&B is just a fixed 2.5.

[SteveForge]

The previously posted forum info was:
CB: 2.5 (100%), 2.0 (75%), 1.6 (50%), 1.2 (20%)
SS: 1.6 (100%), 2.0 (75%), 2.4 (50%), 2.6 (25%)


Here's the data charted out (see attached).

You'll notice that battles start with full faculty (on the right) and move left over the battle. Not only does SS have an advantage in the max damage level (approaches 2.75 cd at 0%), it also does so in mid battle to the end when strong pops can mean a win vs loss. C&B on the other hand would be a decent alternative if it didn't suicide troops.

Looking at these curves I'd assume that Armored Charge (a 2.2 fixed cd) or Soul Taking Arrows (2.0) would have more net effect on most battles compared to C&B.

Hopfully the crash and burn buff will fix its weaknesses. A 15% loss instead of 50%, and a small bump to the CD (say 2.8 max similar to SS) would be in order IMO.

I'd be interested to see the damage curve for continuous C&B and continuous SS laid over top of this data. I assume, like most continous BMs, that the damage is lower than their "pure spirit" BM versions... anyone have a Annubis-Hera double bomber BR? giving them the same faculty and stats could be possible... that'd make it real interesting.

[Pluton]

Nice Info Steve!

Yea, C&B coefficient should be fixed. I updated the BM coefficient for C&B.

[Prabhu]

I've not followed the numbers carefully but I would like to add my 2 cents this way -

1. You get Anubis first and then the continuous C&B hero. Simply put C&B > SS. A 1 shot kill at start of battle is far more reliable than the one towards end (which is very risky!)

2. Towards late game, I guess healer becomes mandatory for any build. Healer works counter-productive with SS heroes, however the same healer works perfectly complementing a C&B hero.

Just some logical thoughts, I just feel C&B is the 'future tense' of SS All these lead me to the conclusion that Triton + Asclepius (or the late game healer) is going to be the best combo ever! Triton's troop type is already super-cool. His BM is way over-powered and that's gonna get buffed up :-| This 'buffing up' a hero usually happens to encourage more players to use those heroes lol (at least, from what I have observed in other games )

[Pluton]

I just lost 50%HP after Triton's every BM, but I guess that's because of 0 wash and not good enough spirit defense...

We'll see much later what Triton can do...

[gombe]

nice one thanks for the info guys

[Evilness]

Prabhu you are complety wrong here. Notice that SS damage becomes higher then C&B under 75% faculty. It is very hard to keep hero over 75% half of the battle if he damages himself, which means SS has better average damage. The second benefit is that SS can be an excelent tank due the the fact damage increases with less faculty. And thirdly you are wrong about the healer. Unlike C&B, SS hero is always placed in front and extra heal can just increase survivalability. Most of the battle unit is still under 75% faculty and does more damage then C&B

[Guest]

Is there a difference between a maia(or any hero) with 100% faculty (8000 troops) vs an exact same maia with 100%faculty with 11k troops as far as damage goes?

[Orochi]

no. damage is based on the % left of your faculty, higher maximum faculty doesnt give more damage.

[Goldmember]

Higher faculty though is generally attributable to better troop grade which does increase damage.

[Orochi]

(12-27-2011, 01:36 PM)Goldmember Wrote: Higher faculty though is generally attributable to better troop grade which does increase damage.

no... troop grade has NO effect on faculty. higher hero LEVEL = high faculty.

eg lv 90 G12 hero "X", will have less faculty than lv 91 G9 hero "X".

[Goldmember]

I guess I didn't phrase that correctly...meant the same thing just said it wrong.

[Prabhu]

(11-04-2011, 06:05 PM)Evilness Wrote: Prabhu you are complety wrong here. Notice that SS damage becomes higher then C&B under 75% faculty. It is very hard to keep hero over 75% half of the battle if he damages himself, which means SS has better average damage. The second benefit is that SS can be an excelent tank due the the fact damage increases with less faculty. And thirdly you are wrong about the healer. Unlike C&B, SS hero is always placed in front and extra heal can just increase survivalability. Most of the battle unit is still under 75% faculty and does more damage then C&B

Well, it's pretty late for me to see this thread. SS heroes are more commonly used(even I used Hemera for quite a while now) compared to C&B heroes. The point is we haven't seen the comparison coming from someone who is in 140 maps or beyond and who says C&B is useless compared to SS(after trying both ofc). Otherwise, it's only our estimates. AFAIK C&B comes into picture only in later part compared to SS.

Healer being counter-productive to SS heroes is something you have to try and see, numbers aren't totally conclusive.

---

(12-26-2011, 06:59 PM)Guest Wrote: Is there a difference between a maia(or any hero) with 100% faculty (8000 troops) vs an exact same maia with 100%faculty with 11k troops as far as damage goes?

When Maia has the same faculty percent in both cases(say 100%), there is no difference in damage output.

Now, if Maia takes say 6k damage, first Maia will end up with 25% faculty and second Maia will end up with 50% faculty(approx.). Now the damage output will be different - higher faculty will be able to dish out higher damage.